Well, then, we'll be seeing you around, Nouri. By Bushra Juhi for Associated Press (thanks to Mackie):
BAGHDAD (AP) - Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that the Iraqi army and police are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave "any time they want," though he acknowledged the forces need further weapons and training.The embattled prime minister sought to show confidence at a time when congressional pressure is growing for a withdrawal and the Bush administration reported little progress had been made on the most vital of a series of political benchmarks it wants al-Maliki to carry out.
Al-Maliki said difficulty in enacting the measures was "natural" given Iraq's turmoil.
But one of his top aides, Hassan al-Suneid, rankled at the assessment, saying the U.S. was treating Iraq like "an experiment in an American laboratory." He sharply criticised the U.S. military, saying it was committing human rights violations, embarassing the Iraqi government with its tactics and cooperating with "gangs of killers" in its campaign against al-Qaida in Iraq.
U.S. military, saying it was committing human rights violations, this said by a thug of the iraqi gov't!
so when the US military knocks off the so called iraqi police where shooting at the US military that would be called self preservation. The wrong in are in the charge of the iraqi gov't.
you know Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki if he meant those words, gave the US a date for departure, and l am sure they will oblige. but we all know this was made with a wink and smile to make himself look good with the rest of the muslim boys.
I wish America would leave now, but leave no weapons or trainers. And wipe that garbage dump of a country out. That's the thanks that America gets for all its help. What a waste of American resoarces, and military personal.
I doubt we will leave and I doubt we learned anything, like nation building in Islamic countries is a waste of blood and treasure, you beat Islam with the truth , and by taking out the preachers.
Suprise, Suprise.
Yup, we should go now, and take all our stuff with us.
I'd be fascinating to see what whould happen.
My guess is the barbs would not be able to govern themselves without an iron hand like Saddam's.
Looks like some of Bushs stuoidity has rubbed off on the Iraqi.
The Iraqi government, if that's what you blonde Americans wanna call it,is as legitimate as Bush is in Iran. It will pack up and leave on American tanks like it did on arrival. The only thing guaranteeing its existence is the occupation by the 150.000 foreign Christian troops who thought they were going to be greeted by sweets and flowers. I enjoy more popularity in my town than Nouri Bushliki can only dream of. Blonde Americans are delusional, and they need to snap out of it. It is time to admit defeat. Your professional armed robbery of the oil has failed.
Ex-lover of jesus and no lover of Judeo-Nazis
The real failure in Iraq was in trusting the locals. Whatever we do, we shouldn't let the world's 4th largest supply of oil go to the jihadis.
Pro-jihadists, the Muslims and their leftist allies, will always complain about our alleged interest in the oil since they know damn well how vital that is. They are no fools, and we shouldn't be either.
"he [Nouri al-Maliki] acknowledged the forces need further weapons and training."
-- from the article above
Yes, those "weapons." Those American weapons that all sides are just dying to have the Americans give them, not because they are or will be or ever could be loyal allies, or friends, of those Americans - the odd Gunga Din among the locals should not fool any American officers and men (who have more direct experience, and so are less gullible) into thinking that the American Infidels can find true friends among Muslims (very temporary alliances, based mainly on the desire for American money and military equipment, is another thing).
Ideally, not a rifle and not a Humvee should be left behind. Perhaps -- depending on the nature of the guarantees to protect local Christians, and to provide a safe haven for them in Kurdistan -- a few weapons, which can be resupplied if the Kurds scrupulously fulfill their solemn guarantees, might be left with the pesh merga.
But that's it.
That "progressive," - he's such a card, isn't he?
It's funny how he speaks about Americans'being delusional when Muslims are so delusional they worship a "God" that doesn't exist!
Ha-Ha! Imagine whacking your head 5 times a day with your butt tilted skyward to something that doesn't exist! So pathetic.
Hey progressive - where was your beloved "Allah" during the 1967 six-day Arab/Israeli war? For some reason, "he" let the JEWS KICK YOUR MUSLIM BUTTS!
There is no "Allah," progressive, you poor, misguided, duped, and conned Mohammedan!
and after the flit hits the shan upon withdrawal, he'll be sure to ask americans to make sure they leave behing enough bar soap and towels behind at the new Hotel Americana (a/k/a the 20+ building U.S. embassy complex being built as we speak in downtown Bahgdad for $550 million) on their way out.
progressive said: "Blonde Americans are delusional, and they need to snap out of it."
First of all, you must get out from under the blanket of your liberal friends, because probably only 25% of Americans are blonde, and the majority of those are probably dyed (fake) blonde. I don't understand why you keep harping on 'blonde Americans.' Are blonde Americans the only ones you hate, or do you hate us all?
btw, I'm sure we all hate you too.
Secondly, you couldn't be more right.
Americans ARE delusional, because we actually believed we could help koranimals in the middle east litter box. These people live to fight, torture, and die. In hindsight, we were downright stupid to think they wanted more for themselves and generations of their children to come. Instead, they acted like koranimals all around the world act every day, proving yet again that islam and civility are polar opposites.
Sick and tired of wasting precious American blood and money on a bunch of backwards, death-cult ingrates.
AMERICA OUT NOW. Bush always said we'd stay until the iraqi government no longer needs us there, and it sure sounds like we got the go-ahead we need to get the hell on outta there.
Let's leave them to kill each other and themselves.
What a 'progressive' society.
I read in a newspaper article this morning that leaving Iraq will be a "massive undertaking" due to the tons of heavy equipment as well as the area being hostile to us. Whereas when we left Kuwait in the '90's the area was friendly to us, so the withdrawal of both people and equipment was easier.
"He (Hassan al-Suneid) sharply criticised the U.S. military, saying it was committing human rights violations, embarassing the Iraqi government with its tactics and cooperating with "gangs of killers" in its campaign against al-Qaida in Iraq."
"... that's my job!" he added.
it would be wise to leave enough guns and ammo so the islamists can kill each other more quickly. heck pregrossive muslims kill each other faster than we in the West could ever wish for. just put the military around bases near the oil wells and let the towns and cities full of islamists deal with themselves. stand back and watch the evil errupt in those towns without any Western intervention.
The Iraqi government, if that's what you blonde Americans wanna call it,is as legitimate as Bush is in Iran. It will pack up and leave on American tanks like it did on arrival. The only thing guaranteeing its existence is the occupation by the 150.000 foreign Christian troops who thought they were going to be greeted by sweets and flowers. I enjoy more popularity in my town than Nouri Bushliki can only dream of. It is time to admit defeat. Your professional armed robbery of the oil has failed.
Bush took Osama's bait when he embarked on successive invasions. Osama knew he could not defeat the US face to face in a conventional war, so he dragged it to his backyard. And Bush fell for it. 3700 Christian lives lost, in vain of course, 300 billion dollars and counting, but keep in mind that most of the money is being spent on security not reconstruction. So, blonde Americans(blonde here means stupid), who is losing?
Ex-lover of jesus and no lover of Judeo-Nazis
Poor "progressive"!! Too ashamed of being a Muslim to admit it here.
We forgive you for it, no need to feel worried as you can worship your warlord in peace as far as we are concerned.
As for the "ex jesus lover" you never did love him for real as no one who really did would make such a moronic nametag.
Why do you Muslims have such a fetish about blonde americans? is it the size of the breasts?
No wonder you want Sharia there in the USA.
Come out of the closet Abdul/Muhammad/Omar etc.
We wont bite you.
Attack Iran's military and nuclear facilities with overwhelming air strikes and long-range ground artillery and then get most of our troops home and out of the Middle East and completely out of urban areas. This should have happened yesterday.
Also make damn sure we leave no more troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. These ingrates and enemies have played us for long enough.
It's past time these Western nations began behaving like nations at war with an Islamic enemy. If we do not, mark my words, we will fail.
Call me a doom-sayer if you wish, but in my estimation we are losing this struggle. The real dangers are already within us.
If America and the other nations pick up and evacuate Iraq before that country's army and security forces are ready, then al Qaeda wins. It is just that simple.
And declaring victory over the Great Satan would be an enormous recruiting tool for AQ. Recruits which would no longer fight America in Iraq, but in North America, Great Britain and all of Europe.
Withdrawl means that everyone's favorite kook-in-a-suit will have a free hand to export even more hatred of the U.S. and Israel around: He's targeting Bahrain today, Somolia and East Africa tomorrow.
President Bush was entirely correct in the goals of sending troops into Afghanistan and into Iraq, it was just that neither he nor his advisors in State or Defense recognized the mindset of fundamental Islam generally, or of al Qaeda specifically.
America's leadership will not bother listening to al Maliki's words. But his words WILL resound, echo in the ears of an appeasing Democratic congress!
--And if the battle against these bloodthirsty savages were not there, do any doubt that they would leave us alone here, forever? How about England, Australia, India, Pakistan??
Lastly, "Progressive" above urges the U.S. to admit defeat and leave Iraq; doing so would make him right, and JihadWatchers all, all wrong.
Oh, and one more thing: do not think for one minute that the Iranian and Iraqi leaders aren't making backroom deals. If we do not cripple Iran before we vacate, Iraq will flip to Iranian control within a year, either covertly or by military intimidation. By that point we will no longer have the resolve to step in again and a Democratic majority will make sure of that.
progressive misses the point again.
Don't you read all of the posts here?
Most of us here would have the US leave Iraq immediately and let the fools kill each other.
IMO IRAQ is not worth one western life.
As for blonde being dumb, it is only in your most lurid imagination, I am afraid. Just check up on the Nobel prizes Muslims have won (excluding the rubbish peace award) Far more blondes have won them than Muslims or Arabs. So what does that tell you?
Or better still go look at useful patents and compare them Your people are only good at destroying not creating. You would be still back eating sand and dates and counting yr goats if it were not for the west.
exlover of jesus my ****
And as for "admitting defeat" -- I have stated here for years, if anyone remembers, that the primary strategic goal of entering Iraq in the first place always should have been to put ourselves in place to cripple Iran's far more dire ambitions. IF WE DO THIS -- THAT IS THE VICTORY!
If we do not, then yes, that is the real failure, and ironically, most Americans wouldn't even be informed of such a reality by the media or our elected representatives; they would all be too busy feasting on the "Iraq loss", and jockeying for votes and viewers.
The most important thing is to maintain a strategic footprint in Iraq. We have an airbase that is 26 square miles in area, surrounded by no-man’s land strewn with barbed wire. Keep this base and keep a presence in New Kurdistan. There are big boys in the world who don’t arrest squirrels and who are eying the Middle East’s oil. However this conflict plays out, the West has established a legitimate presence. We need to maintain this presence in order to lay claim to the oil when the time comes.
Anti-ship missile and torpedo advances will make it very dangerous to operate carriers in the Gulf in the future. These bases will allow the West to maintain tactical air superiority throughout the Middle East.
Our greatest concern at this point should be maintaining that "footprint" near the oil fields.
My Machiavellian tendencies are showing today. I have little or not sympathy for Iraq and really haven't since the day those bodies were hung from a bridge.
I'm sure we're in Iraq for good, but al-maliki and any other ingrate that shoots their mouth off should be handeled with removel by force. That's the way Saddam would have handeled their butts.
AMartinez-
No reason to 'wipe out that garbage dump of a country'.
Let them do it.
As far as I'm concerned, we already won the war over there months ago. Saddam and his sons are gone. His failure to comply with UN weapons inspections backfired on him. He lost his bluff.
Now it's up to the iraqis to form a new government. And if they ever pose a threat - we'll return and mop them up again.
It shouldn't be our burden to form a civilized nation over there.
To everyone who wants Iraq to descend into chaos, where do you think all the refugees will end up?
According to many of our wonderful politicians, we have an obligation to accept refugees, with NO PREFERENCE FOR PERSECUTED MINORITIES (read Christians). And how many of our slimey politicians will prefer representing the refugees instead of the natives, as they do now with illegals?
How many more muslims do you want in this country? Given our current problems with illegal immigration, add more muslims into the mix, that's a recipe for big trouble for native born Americans.
We'd better make darn sure Iraq does NOT fall apart, or the problems will indeed follow us home. The problems will have green cards, citizenship, and even eventually be able to vote.
That would indeed be a nightmare.
progressive the retard, can you add up how many islamists have been killed by other islmaists and even just those killed by the US military, it would drawf 3,700! heck hundreds of islmaist are killed and other assorted muslims killed by islamists, soon iraq will be empthy of people. they will need setters from non muslims lands to fill in the void and even Christian arabs can reclaim their land! good for the Christain arabs can walk right in iraq after its been cleaned up of islmaists! Bush must be right on track here!
ps l missed an important word.
hundreds of islamists are killed by other islamists weekly! and that is not including those islamists terrorists killed by the US military and its allies.
How often do OUR politicians truly speak for the average American? Or in this case, the average Iraqi?
Here is an alternate version that gives a better picture of the point of view of the Ahmed in the street.
The Times of London reports on a crossroads in Jabour that demonstrates the successes and the dangers of the surge in Iraq. While the soldiers would prefer to be elsewhere, the efforts to close down lines of communication for al-Qaeda and other terrorists has created an "Iraqi surge" in the area -- the creation of a new police unit from tribal volunteers who want the momentum to stay against the terrorists. The tribal leaders remain cautious about cooperating too much with the Americans, however, because they are afraid we're leaving:
This shabby outpost is at the heart of President Bush’s Iraqi strategy. And it is, therefore, at the centre of a raging political debate in Washington that could yet see US troops hurried home.
It is one of four such camps established in the lawless Arab Jabour region since mid-June as part of Mr Bush’s troop “surge” – his last-ditch attempt to curb the violence that is crippling Iraq. ...
Such outposts give US troops a permanent foothold for the first time within local communities. Previously they had operated from isolated fortress-like bases around the country, going out to clear hostile areas before heading back after a few days.
Colonel Terry Ferrell, the US commander in Arab Jabour, said that the extra manpower provided by the surge allowed troops to integrate better with the public and win the all-important support of tribal sheikhs, who command huge local influence and are starting to speak out against al-Qaeda.
Morale seems mixed in this remarkably balanced report. Some of the soldiers there want to leave, tired of the heat and of an enemy that won't engage in a stand-up fight. Others see progress and want to remain to see the mission all the way through. The commanding officers warn that an abandonment of the crossroads would not only give the important roads back to terrorists, but also would betray the coalition of local Iraqi leaders that have formed an alliance with the American troops in fighting al-Qaeda.
One Iraqi made this point very clear to the Times:
Local Iraqis touched by the surge of US troops seem grateful for the increased security, but some are scared of getting too close to the Americans in case they leave.
“I cannot help the coalition because I worry that if I do and the soldiers go then the terrorists will come back and kill me,” said Mokdat Ahmed Shahib, a 40-year-old security guard, who lives in a village near Patrol Base Murray. He was speaking as a group of US military medics handed out free medicine and advice to scores of families, who had no other healthcare facilities in their village.
The Iraqis know better than anyone what a withdrawal will mean for them. The terrorists will have free rein to lauch punitive attacks against those who allied themselves with us, creating not only a wave of victims but also the impetus for an explosion of non-government militias. Some tribes will choose to fight the terrorists, while others will cut a deal with whomever they see as the strongest side for the long run. It's a prescription to turn an insurgency into a real civil war on every level in Iraq -- a bloodbath unlike anything we've seen thus far.
At the moment, the terrorists simply cannot launch those kinds of attacks in any consistent manner. They cannot use the road at this crossroads, which severely limits their range. Instead, they litter the road with IEDs in the hope of killing enough Americans to force our withdrawal. Seven have died thus far in that manner in Jabour.
At the same time, the local populace has begun to secure themselves. The tribes requested arms from the US, but the central Iraqi government refused permission, worried about arming local militias. In Anbar, the tribal leaders called for their members to staff the local police force under the government's command and the watchful eye of the American commanders in the area. The same may happen soon in Jabour. If it does, it will allow the surge operation to speed up considerably.
Will it be fast enough to keep Congress from reversing all of the gains made in the last few weeks? It may be a race to the finish line.
treehugger has a point. Who will absorb all the bloody refugees if we pull out? I have no problem with anyone who is not Muslim, but we can't discriminate can we?
Actually, MisIslamist, I think "progressive" probably does eat sand.
Iraqi forces "need further weapons and training"? I'll buy the training bit, but how could they possibly need more weapons? Isn't the whole country a munitions warehouse?
Would we even be allowed to airlift heavy machinery or SUVs out of the country? Leave them behind. Maintenance costs money. Without that the weapons will be piles of junk. Jeeps, humvees and other military vehicles must have some parts available only in America.
Can't any of this stuff be rendered useless on our way out the door?
al Maliki certainly knows the definition of chutzpah. Accusing the US of "cooperating with gangs of killers"?
Did I miss the story where the US applauded Shia death squads? How about when Iraqi army and police collaborated on attacks on US military?
MisIslamist mentions the Nobel Prize. I did a quick count and came up with 3 moslem winners total for the Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Literature, and Economics Prizes; 4 if you count one whose father was a moslem, but is himself a Christian. That's out of maybe 500 winners.
treehugger said:
First, it's not that we want Iraq to descend into chaos, it's that we recognize that Iraq has descended into chaos, and will descend much further, regardless of how much money we spend there and how many of our troops are killed by IED's. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, and waiting for 5 more months or 5 more years or 5 more decades will not make it transform, even if you really, really, really want it to. Take a look at Western values, then take a look at the values taught in the Qur'an, and try to reconcile them.
Secondly, no-one here has proposed letting Iraq follow its inevitable future course, and then opening up our borders to whomever wants to come in. Immigration control is far more beneficial to our safety than capturing an Al Qaeda member or two in Iraq in my opinion. And, where did the huge flood of U.S. refugees go during our Civil War? Oh, that's right, Southerners stayed in the South, and Northerners stayed in the North. Which is what will happen in the self-implemented partition of Iraq. There is no need for the Iraqis to come here, due to their own religiously inspired propensity for violence. "We are a terribly violent and cruel people, that is why we must escape from ourselves and come to your country". Does that sound convincing to anyone? It doesn't to me.
atheling said:
We should be very descriminating about who we let into the country. That is exactly the point of having any immigration controls whatsoever. I have no problem with "poor, starving, huddled masses", but I have a big problem with "poor, starving, huddled masses of people who want to either forcibly convert you to their religion or kill you, your choice". When did we get the idea that we have no right to control who comes into our country? We've always discriminated and limited, based on country of origin, whether they have family here, whether they have any special skills, whether they have diseases, and so on. We have always had the right to set whatever rules we want. If we want to only allow left-handed Lithuanian orthodontists, who is to say we can't? What part of the Constitution says that we can't control who comes into our country?
The Nobel Prize is a Western inception; it is a political Prize, most of the time, that rewards individuals who are pro-Western and serve their agendas. We don't need the West to dictate to us what is good science, literature, invention, or what have you. For example, I am the best tool against Western propaganda, but I am not going to be given Nobel Prize. Whereas if I was an AIPAC member which serves Judeo-Nazi interests I will be given one. You blonde people know that, I suppose.
Ex-lover of Jesus and no lover of Judeo-Nazis.
Uh huh, I was right, easy to see from "progressive's" inane, delusional comment above that sand is a big part of his steady diet. Keep crunching, progressive - your sand diet has affected the reasoning part of your brain.
The Muslims are never responsible for anything - always the West's fault! "Victimology" - it's a Muslim thing, you wouldn't understand!
ebonystone said:
And where did those 4 (or actually, 3) winners live and study? It is one thing for someone who professes to be a Muslim to come to the West, and give up the inshallah fatalism, and the edict that all knowledge is contained in the Qur'an, and that any technology not available at the time of Muhammad is prohibited "innovation". Of course it is possible for them to give up true Islamic belief and become Muslim in name only, and begin to think and act like an infidel, but keep the Muslim moniker out of familial respect or a wistful connection to the homeland of one's imagination.
Ex-lover of jesus and no lover of Judeo-Nazis
Posted by: progressive
progressive you are twisted, Jesus does not demand that you love him, that is what your muhummad and allah have you twisted about bowing before a place on earth. simpletons need a black rock to circle around, now look how Muslim act more like a pagan.
as far as the Nobel Prize, Muslims do not seem destined to bring about any thing useful for humanity, that is not a concept muslims are prepared to think about. muslims do use "Western inventions" and are the first ones to cry about being victims.
Well if you did not spend all your time bending butt over five times a day, and spend some quality time using your head you just might escape the 7th century.
The dipshiite above sez:"It is time to admit defeat. Your professional armed robbery of the oil has failed."
If we wanted to rob the middle-east of oil (which I think we should, since we found it and drilled for it and maintain it) we wouldn't be paying $4 a gallon for gasoline. You mohammadans repeat that lie every time you open your pieholes. "Stealing oil", what a laugh!
special-guest,
I think you highly overrate American's politicians when it comes to national security.
Our current immigration situation proves the point, our government has NO discrimination about who they let into the country, and no will to keep out those who would do us harm.
What were the consequences when illegal immigrants marched in the street waving the Mexican flag??
Zilch, zip, nada. Other, then, of course, our President telling those of us who want secure borders that we "don't want what is right for America".
Good advice, "Put not your faith in princes (or in American politicians).
Ted Kennedy and his fellow travellers are already on record saying that we need to do more for the existing refugees, because it is OUR FAULT. My prediction, you'll start hearing more of this refrain, particularly if Iraq goes south.
Special_Guest talks of the difference between Western and Qu'ranic values. I'm reading a book about the French conquest of Morocco. Back in the 1860s, a German traveler Gerhard Rolphs found himself wandering around Morocco. He had to pretend that he was a Muslim convert, kicked out of Europe so that the Moroccans would not kill him. Anyway, he made the following observation:
The whole manner of living is so simple, the requirements are so few, the talk is so stereotyped and turns so nearly always on the same subjects, that, when one has mastered the construction of the Moorish mode of speech and has committed to memory the most necessary words, talking is easy. The great things is always to have the words “Allah” and “Prophet” in one’s mouth, to talk of Paradise and Hell, not to forget the devil, and devotedly murmur over the rosary as it slips through the fingers. Should it happen that one is doubtful about a sentence, or forget a word, and says instead of it “Allah is the greatest!” or “Mohammed is the favorite of Allah!” or “Allah confound the Christians!” no Moroccan would notice it even though the exclamation had no reference at all to what had preceded it, and would finish the sentence, or find the word wanted himself.”
The book is The Conquest of Morocco by Douglas Porch. It is pretty good.
"The Nobel Prize is a Western inception; it is a political Prize, most of the time, that rewards individuals who are pro-Western and serve their agendas. We don't need the West to dictate to us what is good science, literature, invention, or what have you. For example, I am the best tool against Western propaganda, but I am not going to be given Nobel Prize. Whereas if I was an AIPAC member which serves Judeo-Nazi interests I will be given one. You blonde people know that, I suppose.
Ex-lover of Jesus and no lover of Judeo-Nazis."
Progressive,
I hate to tell you this, but anything of any worth in this world today is Western, including all the scinces, literature and invention.
You can bet that the Nobel committee would be handing out prizes like jelly beans to the third world if thay could find an excuse to do so. But, unfortunately, they don't give peizes for contributions to witchcraft, acupuncture or head hunting. When someone in the third world does win a Nobel, it's always for their contribution to a science or invention inherited from their Western oppressors.
You better believe that you need the West to dictate to you what is good science, literature, invention.
Next time you need to see a Doctor or spend time in a hospital, take a look around, and see if you can find a single medicine or procedure that came out of the non-Western world.
Period.
Since Ted Swimmer Kennedy's name, here he panders...
natural for him isn't it?
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=2085&comments=1
progressive said
Why not come up with the Muslim equivalent? Why not create The Muhammad Prize, for the persons (oops, sorry, I meant Muslims; can't have those Zionists or Crusaders mucking things up) who can:
- recite the Qur'an the fastest;
- recite the Qur'an backwards the fastest;
- recite the Qur'an in the highest voice;
- recite the Qur'an in the lowest voice;
and so on. Besides memorizing the Qur'an, I suppose you could move on to categories for the Muslim who:
- thinks of the best place to hide explosives (last year's winner could be the guy who thought of putting it in a hollowed out prosthetic leg);
- comes up with the best excuse for why the infidels are responsible for Muslim-on-Muslim violence;
- invents new materials for bomb vests to increase their lethality (past winners include the guy who added nails and screws, and the guy who added rat poison);
Come on, don't just sit around moping about the Vast Zionist-Crusader-Hindu-Buddhist-Taoist Conspiracy. Don't just wait for Allah to create prizes for Muslims, show some initiative. Think for yourself, and take some innovative steps to ... oh, never mind.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that the Iraqi army and police are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave "any time they want," though he acknowledged the forces need further weapons and training.
Hey, Ali.. How you gonna *PAY* for the weapons and training?
How much oil you gonna offer us in exhange?
I pay taxes in the USA and my enquiring mind wants to know. I don't care how the poloticians like to handle things and GIVE AWAY THE STORE all the time to ANYONE but WORKING Americans... I WANT TO KNOW, Ali!
How you gonna pay us?!
...'saying the U.S. was treating iraq "like an experiment in an American laboratory."He sharply criticised the U.S. Military, saying it was committing human rights violations, embarassing the iraqi government, with it's tactics and cooperating with "gangs of killers" in it's campaign against al-Quaida in iraq.' Please don't tell me our beloved U.S. Military put fruit of the loom on al-maliki's head, timing how long it would take him to take them off, amidst gangs of killers.
I'm not drunk, just trying to do 3 things at once.
Should read ↑ Since Ted Swimmer Kennedy's name has been brought into the discussion
Melanie Phillips, author of Londonistan, was on WABC radio this morning with Monica Crowley. Pretty potent stuff. Phillips cited the statistic that some 40% of Muslims in the UK want sharia law there. Crowley cited the statistic that some 25% of UK Muslims sympathized with the 7/7/05 bombing of the London public transport system. Phillips said that 25% sympathized with the goals of 7/7/05, if not necessarily the means. They mentioned the current debate over the effort to build in London a huge mosque, one that would be the largest in the world outside of Mecca, and would have a capacity for 70,000 people. Crowley pointed out that this mosque would be quite near the site where the Olympics are to be held in a few years in London.
Phillips also said the U.S. would soon be faced with a similar crisis to the one facing the UK and Europe, unless we in the U.S. wake up and prevent it.
Phillips said "Londonistan" is a state of mind: it's there where the West hates itself enough to allow itself to be psychologically colonized by radical Islam. Phillips said the radical Muslims are well aware of the self-hatred in the West, and that many, not all, Muslims intentionally seek to mentally colonize the Western mind, in order to gain credit for the horrible ideas the radical Muslims put forward.
Phillips said the greatest danger was not terrorism, but this mental colonization whereby Westerners feel they cannot even name the enemy, because that would be racism and a sin against multiculturalism. This inability even to talk about the problem makes the West vulnerable to takeover by hatred of the West, of America, of Jews, of freedom, etc.
I say give the U.S. a black non-Muslim any day over a white or any other color Muslim.
Crowley asked Phillips if it was too late for the UK and Europe, and Phillips said it was far from over, that the battle hadn't even really begun. We can lose it, but we haven't lost it yet.
Regarding the view of the Ahmed on the Iraqi street:
One sentence defines the entire war.
"The tribal leaders remain cautious about cooperating too much with the Americans, however, because they are afraid we're leaving."
This is the source of all the problems and the diffidence Americans feel toward the Iraqi on the street. For most of the last four years they've been practically inviting Americans to leave with denunciations of the coalition presence as an "occupation" and setting up roadside bombs and killing people lined up for police training and NOW they're saying they can't cooperate with us TOO MUCH because they're afraid we'll leave? They are telling us they don't really care which side wins. Where were they four years ago? They are the reason we're leaving, and now they would all but accuse us of walking out on them.
To heck with the average Iraqi. When he decides what it is he wants then he can give us a call and maybe, just maybe, someone might pick up.
Either you want freedom or you don't. Either it's something you're willing to fight for or it isn't. If it's the latter, then we're outta here. There is no reason for any American to put his life on the line for people who aren't willing to put their own lives on the line for themselves and their children. This is a struggle they should be proud to take up even if the coalition leaves tomorrow. In that one sentence they've effectively said it's not. Let them live with dictators. Why should we care?
treehugger said
I agree with you there. I just don't think that's a good reason for us to continue paying $1 billion per month to stay in Iraq, not to mention the other costs. Our current immigration situation is going to let Iraqis and jihadists into our borders whether or not we're in Iraq. It's a separate problem that needs a separate solution. It's what we should be talking about, rather than how many more months we're going to stay in Iraq.
How could a muslim possibly come up with anything remotely close to qualifying for a Nobel prize.
They haven't even invented razor blades yet.
Or soap.
When did 'comments' turn into 'debate' or 'forum' here?
I remember seeing the topic being:
"Iraq PM: Country Can Manage Without U.S.";
not 'the Nobel Prize', not future U.S. immigration policy, not 'We should bomb Iran before we leave Iraq' arguments.
It's just too easy to pick on the obviously Muslim Progressive though, instead of staying on topic, and ignoring his/her prattle. Islamic idealogy demands nothing less than what he/she is trying (and succeeding) to do here.
And by no means am I defending Progressive. I am only interested in other's views upon Mr. Spencer's current topic, not the easy, personal attacks, or tangents going off into the WBY, which amount to nothing ultimately.
Saying something only to see/to say that one has typed something, is farfetched and useless in the long run.
Let's stay on topic, can we?
Let's look at the bigger picture, the larger question as proffered by the topic, instead of deviating to pedestrian, personal slaps, shall we?
'We should bomb Iran before we leave Iraq' arguments. localmalcontent l beg to differ with you on the point above. if the US is told they are not needed, we all know the gov't of iraq some at least are in bed with the iranians, shites groupies. iran would take over iraqi oil fields, so logically taking down iran would kill a lot of birds with one stone (missile) since iran is the leading State sponsoring of islamic terrorism, and destables the whole ME, the way to bring some balance would be take down iran. that l believe is "on topic". are you more contented now? lol
Please visit Anti-Racist Blog for full coverage of pro-terrorist activists on U.S. college campuses:
http://antiracistblog.blogspot.com/
"If America and the other nations pick up and evacuate Iraq before that country's army and security forces are ready, then al Qaeda wins. It is just that simple."
localmalcontent,
I'll take your bait. It is NOT that simple. Army and security forces are collaborating to kill Americans, or haven't you heard?
Al Qaeda wins only if the locals let it win. We cannot fight their battle for them. If they want to be free of al qaeda they are going to have to do the heavy lifting. Instead the Shia are working with Iranians and the Sunni have been working with the Syrians to prevent the mission from succeeding. The Sunnis are getting cold feet only because it looks like the Shia might actually take over the country. They're getting what they wished for and what they called for over the last four years: an American exit.
Someone posted an article saying the tribal chiefs are afraid to cooperate too much with us because they think we're leaving.
Well, they are the reason we're leaving. What have they done in the last four years except denounce our "occupation" and praise jihad in all its forms?
Don't swallow the propaganda someone is feeding you. If al Qaeda takes over it will be the Iraqi people who are the losers. They had a chance for something better and they just couldn't resist spitting on it. How long did the Shia keep their powder dry while Zarqawi worked his magic among the Sunnis? They did nothing to stop him. They are the losers and they deserve to lose.
As for "fighting them over here": they're already over here. We are not preventing anything in Iraq. All we are doing is weakening ourselves in defense of people who don't really care who rules them, except when they have a chance to whine about America supporting dictators.
"I cannot help the coalition because I worry that if I do and the soldiers go then the terrorists will come back and kill me, said Mokdat Ahmed Shahib, a 40-year-old security guard, who lives in a village near Patrol Base Murray. He was speaking as a group of US military medics handed out free medicine and advice to scores of families, who had no other healthcare facilities in their village.
Localmalcontent,
Unless the Iraqis lose this attitude there is no reason for us to stay. When do you think the security forces will be ready, if this gentleman is any indication? What do they think we are trying to accomplish? Is it our job to stay there and protect them from al qaeda forever? Then I move we make Iraq the 51st state.
The US should perhaps go ahead and leave. Leave it to them. None of the groups there will be satisfied without exclusive rights to the oil or power, thus it will be 'bad' fighting 'bad' and 'bad' will win. Nothing good can come of this, either way.
Then because the US is gone, muslims will blame the US for the 'bad', again, for the zillionth time.
Might as well start deportations now, cause it ain't gonna be pretty.
Ideally, not a rifle and not a Humvee should be left behind. Posted by Hugh
It will all be left behind and sold to arms dealers by the kilo, with the proceeds used to finance one of our small private wars. Remember Beirut, Col. North, Iran Contra? LOL!
"Looks like some of Bushs stuoidity has rubbed off on the Iraqi." (exact quote posted by "Alert" on July 14, 2007 st 10:56 AM)
Nice work! There's your typical liberal comment.
Maybe you can educate us so we can reduce our "stuoidity" level.
Ok, Ok, OK! Let's keep this as a forum, and rather than keeping to topic.
It is my opinion, just as your opinions are yours, and apparently never the twain shall meet.
So, where to start in banal responses, before I return to mowing my 5-foot-tall lawn outside?? A far more important endeavor today...
Zena, you said: "if the US is told they are not needed, we all know the gov't of iraq some at least are in bed with the iranians, shites groupies. iran would take over iraqi oil fields, so logically taking down iran would kill a lot of birds with one stone (missile) since iran is the leading State sponsoring of islamic terrorism, and destables the whole ME, the way to bring some balance would be take down iran. that l believe is "on topic". are you more contented now?"
Zena, you seem to read the Associated Press story printed above as gospel, disregarding the all-too-clear slant to the left of the press. Your feckless argument
to me is EXACTLY what I said, one relevant comment before: The U.S. needs to stay the course in Iraq, to our satisfaction, and no one elses! Asking if I am now "content", while mildly humorous, is pointly inane of, and beneath you. LOL!
Ah, and PMK: You never cease to amaze me with your insults to me offering my opinions here.
"I'll take your BAIT... Al Qaeda wins only if the locals let it win. We cannot fight their battle for them." What "bait"? If you will (can) only read my post again, I ask if everyone can stay on topic, and cease these personal attacks on another's submitted opinion.
That you view this as bait, says more about you, than it does of me!!
PMK, you are a victim of your own bile in that one! Because later on, in the very same post wherein you attack me, a True American, a full Choctaw, you type this: "Someone posted an article saying the tribal chiefs are afraid to cooperate too much with us because they think we're leaving." The same article implies that most Iraqis do NOT want us to leave the battle, do support us, aren't killing our troops, and would be worse off, if we did leave.
I SET NO BAIT FOR ANYONE. LEAST OF ALL YOU.
For I do not reply to your posted opinions, despite your shallowness.
>here's a request: Leave me the FFFFFFF alone!
For all the camel dung for brains muslims and liberals whining about our desire to steal Middle East oil: Think back to the end of Desert Storm (Gulf War I if you wish).
We could have taken the Iraqi and Saudi oil fields and kept the Kuwaiti oil fields. No one could have stopped us. BUT WE GAVE THEM BACK.
Treah: If that 70,000+ mosque actually matterializes maybe it will consolidate the Westerophobes. It'll be easier to keep a heads up on the situation. Myself being from the U.S. can only empathise, at this point. On the other hand, if so much as one Israeli, Brit, American, Australian ect. even gets hurt, you'll (true Brits) pull a Joe DiMaggio. Joe rescued Marilyn Monroe from a psych ward telling the receptionist that if they didn't release her, he would tear the place down brick by brick. They released her soon after.
Those morons cannot "manage" with or without the presence of U.S. forces. As soon as we leave, and we shouldn't let the door hit us in the ass on the way out, they will slip into the abyss of murder, mayhem and power brokerage. In other words, they will get what they all richly deserve.
Leave and blow up everything we leave behind.
"I'll Get Along Without You Very Well"
--from the article above, quoting Al-Maliki
Music to all kinds of ears.
localmalcontent.
Point taken. "Bait" was a cheap shot. I'm sorry.
The BAIT was you lecturing the rest of us. So I answered you with an argument about what this leader is saying and you find that to be an attack? I guess you can dish it out, but you can't take it. (Sorry again, but I had to respond to your barbs and attacks.)
I do feel bile coming up when I read arguments saying we cannot leave Iraq because we would be leaving the people in the lurch.
I am sick and tired of reading quotes from Iraqis saying they can't cooperate with the US but they still want us to stay. Where is their responsibility in the matter?
If you find that offensive, well we've had four years in Iraq. What are the Iraqis doing to help themselves? Every time I hear someone saying he can't help us but doesn't want us to leave and the next day demonstrates that the US is an occupier my blood boils. Hate to break it to you, but I'm no saint and I've had it with Iraqis who would blame the US for leaving when it's all they've called for for four years. They should be careful what they wish for.
How am I attacking YOU? Does my breaking down your argument count as a personal attack? What's with you?
You said:
"If America and the other nations pick up and evacuate Iraq before that country's army and security forces are ready, then al Qaeda wins. It is just that simple."
Are you saying that that is not worthy of criticism and that it cannot be answered? I don't give a hoot about al Qaeda. We can leave Iraq in one hundred years and they'll still paint it as a victory for al Qaeda. That is called PROPAGANDA.
Truth hurts, doesn't it?
The same article implies that most Iraqis do NOT want us to leave the battle, do support us, aren't killing our troops, and would be worse off, if we did leave.
The point is that they will not cooperate OPENLY. If they really support us, let them show it. Tell us where al qaeda is operating. There have been myriad quotes in the exact same story (caps are mine):
Local Iraqis touched by the surge of US troops SEEM GRATEFUL for the increased security, but some are SCARED OF GETTING TOO CLOSE to the Americans in case they leave.
(meaning they'll go with whomever is stronger)
“I CANNOT HELP THE COALITION because I worry that if I do and the soldiers go then THE TERRORISTS WILL COME BACK AND KILL ME,” said Mokdat Ahmed Shahib, a 40-year-old security guard, who lives in a village near Patrol Base Murray. He was speaking as a group of US MILITARY MEDICS HANDED OUT FREE MEDICINE and advice to scores of families, who had no other healthcare facilities in their village.
(He'll take whatever the Americans give and offer nothing in return.)
"The tribal LEADERS remain cautious about cooperating too much with the Americans, however, because they are afraid we're leaving."
(Leaders won't take a stand? Why should we trust them? They have earned my distrust over four years. The only reason they are even coming close to Americans is that they are more afraid of the Shia than they are of us. Once they're out of danger I would expect them to resume the jihad.)
I am asking where is the Iraqi responsibility for their own country? They can't hold their hands out forever.
I ask if everyone can stay on topic, and cease these personal attacks on another's submitted opinion.
malcontent,
Why do you consider someone arguing with your opinion as a personal attack? Is your argument so weak that you can't debate it without attacking other people (as you did with your little lecture). You weren't attacked in any way. I objected to your deigning to lecture the rest of us. I said one word and then proceeded to speak of the topic at hand.
"The most important thing is to maintain a strategic footprint in Iraq. We have an airbase that is 26 square miles in area, surrounded by no-man’s land strewn with barbed wire. Keep this base and keep a presence in New Kurdistan. There are big boys in the world who don’t arrest squirrels and who are eying the Middle East’s oil. However this conflict plays out, the West has established a legitimate presence. We need to maintain this presence in order to lay claim to the oil when the time comes.
Anti-ship missile and torpedo advances will make it very dangerous to operate carriers in the Gulf in the future. These bases will allow the West to maintain tactical air superiority throughout the Middle East."
-- from a posting above
But who will guarantee the permanence of such a base? The Americans once had an airbase in Morocco; they had to leave it forty years ago. They had a base in Libya, Wheelus Air Base -- they had to leave it when Khaddafy came to power. They have had the use of bases in Saudi Arabia, but only in order to have American airmen treated with contumely, as hired hands, by the Saudis, which is what they were seen as: mere guarantors of the Al-Saud and their corrupt rule, and of the boundaries of Saudi Arabia, against Saddam Hussein and all others. They have temporary bases in Qatar, the main supporter of n's Al Jazeera, now infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood, and in Kuwait, and port rights in Bahrain -- but all of this is not the result of a real alliance by those who can be counted on, but merely the logic of scared local rulers who like the idea of an American presence to protect them and to ward off Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia.
What would conceivably guarantee that such a base could be resupplied? What would prevent attacks on it? Who would wish that base to remain, unless the Americans were willing to intervene to protect this or that side?
Had someone knowledgeable about Islam, and farseeing, and sensible, been making policy, and not the likes of Carter and Brzezinski, then at the time of the Camp David Accords the Americans might have insisted on an American takeover of the Israeli airbases in the Sinai. Egypt needed American cash, and it ought to have been forced to do something tangible in return. Of course, the Sinai ought never to have been given up in the first place, and the Israelis might have been willing to give up an airbase to the Americans, if they had not been so hellbent on giving Saint Sadat not only what he wanted, but far more than he ever could have expected to get with so little effort.
PMK- I will ask you nicely, once again, to offer comments on the topic of the JW article, instead of singling out opinions which differ from yours, therein beginning a new thread.
I will not reply to your most points, for essentially, they, and indeed mine, are moot: Like abortion, or like evolution versus creationism, I won't change your mind, and you are not going to change mine!
If you insist upon arguing with me, by clicking on my moniker below, you'll be whisked to my little bloggie,& we may continue there. NOT HERE!
I have emailed Mr. Spencer this afternoon regarding your steely focus on everything which I posit here on this COMMENTS section, asking him to please delete you. THIS IS NOT A FORUM.
Cordially and goodbye!
the Localmalcontent
Why don't we give the Iraq people a referendum on the continued deployment of troops?
This would solve so many problems:
1: If Iraqis vote to keep the US troops, the international community can't refer to this as an (illegal) occupying force. The Democrats would find it harder to attack the deployment.
2.We can add some conditions on US staying to increase the legal powers of the troops on the ground.. pretty much putting the land into a state of marshal law.
3. If they vote to make the troops leave (my preferred option much like Hugh), then America gets what it wants: the troops out, as well as saving face because "The Democratic process worked". i.e: this was democracy in action, something the US has always stood for.
I know holding a referendum isn't easy, but i believe the benefits would outweigh the costs.
I'm sure this has been stated before.. i've just never read it...
Mark
“There is such a thing as the universality of freedom. I strongly believe that Muslims desire to be free just like Methodists desire to be free.”
-- President Bush, interview, 13 July 2007
http://tinyurl.com/26kmua
What's the use.
In response to various posts regarding the Nobel Prizes, I went back over the lists of winners and now I can only find two, plus the Christian whose father was moslem. I must have miscounted on my first try. The two are Orhan Pamuk, for Literature in 2006, and Naguib Mahfouz, also for Literature in 1988. Pamuk is Turkish, born and living in Turkey, and Mahfouz is Egyptian, born and living in Egypt. The one of islamic descent is Ferid Murad, born and living in the U.S., who won the Prize for Medicine in 1998.
"he [Nouri al-Maliki] acknowledged the forces need further weapons and training."
---------------------------------
Yeah, our guys are having a hard time persuading the Sunnis to apprehend other Sunnis who decimate Shia villages and blow up Shia mosques; and they're having an equally hard time training the Shias to round up other Shias who terrorize Sunni villages and blow up Sunni mosques.
This is why all of Islam needs Stalin-esque dictators to brutally keep the "peace".
“There is such a thing as the universality of freedom. I strongly believe that Muslims desire to be free just like Methodists desire to be free.”
-- President Bush, interview, 13 July 2007
http://tinyurl.com/26kmua
What's the use.
Posted by: Steven L. [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 14, 2007 9:32 PM
Bush is a lost cause.
I strongly believe that Muslims desire to be free \\
only they are not just like the "Methodists", muslims want to be free to kill all non muslims and those muslims like naseems who are not muslim enough. l like the referendum in Iraq, asking the people to vote for a choice to keep the US in or let them go. any guess how a vote would go? lots of angles here.
ps disgreeing is not a personal attack, l just pointed out how threads can lead to various threads, all connected via islam terrorism!
localmalcontent:
I DID post a reply at 3:30 p.m. It had nothing to do with you or progressive, so I guess you weren't interested You obviously didn't read it before you went bonkers.
Before I responded to your BAIT, I went back to see if you had written something. I saw you had no problem knocking down other people's arguments. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Afterward I made another post where I didn't mention a single thing you had said. I simply posted the direct quotation from an article someone else had posted on this thread and asked you why that was wrong. You couldn't answer so you flailed out.
You obviously think you are right and everyone else is wrong and how DARE anyone suggest otherwise.
Point taken.
localmalcontent,
a postscript:
If you are not interested in a give and take then why do you care what other people say? Why do you feel empowered to make blanket criticisms of others and feel you are immune from same?
There's a word for people like you: hypocrite.
ps disgreeing is not a personal attack, l just pointed out how threads can lead to various threads, all connected via islam terrorism!
Zena,
Thanks. I know your post was not directed to me but it's nice to know I'm not alone in my opinion. It seems it's best to just ignore some people. They can't handle debate.
The only downside to pulling out will be the huge wave of muslim refugees that will swamp America. And we all know they will all get in, including thousands of terrorists and other killers.
They only thing the US can do if they pull out is to find a secular dictator and make him a puppet. Find somebody with saddam-like brutality, establish a saddam-like police force, and hopefully keep the islamists at bay so that things don't get so bad that millions of iraqis set sail for the west, which, we all know, will consider itself morally obligated to take them in, seeing as how "we" broke it, so we bought it.
Rather than trying to build a democracy in iraq, the US needs to build a police state. Essentially, what it needs is a dictator. Surely in that motley crew of human filth we call the iraqi people, there must be one more saddam.
I have been a poster on this site nearly since the beginning, and I trust RS and Hugh and Marisol to make the judgment on what posts get the boot. I don't think posters should take it upon themselves to police the site.
Posted by traeh at 3:29
"Crowley asked Phillips if it was too late for the UK and Europe, and Phillips said it was far from over, that the battle hadn't even really begun. We can lose it, but we haven't lost it yet."
----------------------------------
See Fjordman's essay "The Eurabia Code"
http://chromatism.net/fjordman/eurabiacode.htm
or
http://sixthcolumn.typepad.com/sixth_column/2006/11/the_eurabia_cod.html
He borrows some thoughts from Bat Ye'or suggesting that the EU started as a gleam in the eye of France, which felt outflanked by Britain and the US after WWII; Charles de Gaulle set in motion the formation of a Euro-Arab bloc hostile to both of us. It's a long read, but READ IT: you'll see some explanations of why Europe does nothing to limit Muslim immigration even though the presence of so many hostile third-worlders threatens the stability of Europe itself. The "sixthcolumn" article mentions that the development of the EU (and the stealth with which it was implemented piece-by-piece) hints at what is going on in the USA with regard to the NAU/SPP (which members of the Trilateral Commission in our government seem to be pushing, stealthily, piece-by-piece as well). Then go to the August Review and read more about Globalization, who wants it, and why.
see
http://www.augustreview.com/
As far as I'm concerned (no nobody else ties to this, it's my own paranoid idea) the rise of Islamism and the Iraq war may be partly to distract us, to have us all so occupied with the URGENT aspects of war-and-survival that we forget to pay attention to the IMPORTANT issues of creeping loss of our civil rights and of our sovereignty, even of our national identity. I see the NAU and Bush's promises (to Mexican President Calderon and other South American leaders) to ease immigration and start a guest worker program as two of the main reasons that Bush and our Senate leaders were pushing that lousy "shamnesty" bill (comprehensive immigration bill that would have made 12 million illegals "legal" in 24 hours, guaranteed).
Guess I'm far enough off-topic; I'll quit in just a second: my final thought - ESPECIALLY after seeing what Europe's going through under the EU's irresponsible promotion of Muslim immigration - I am VERY concerned about the NAU, about establishing ANY system that would disenfranchise we-the-people and keep us from determining how our country is governed / who gets to make the rules; and I'd like to know who gets to pay for the brave new world these globalists want to experiment with. (End of rant)
It has been my contention for some time that the Western nations should pull out of Iraq. It would not be defeat just people realising that it would be far better to let them (Iraqis ) get on with it and retire to protect their own boarders and clean up the messes in their own countries.
At the moment it is rather like helping your neighbour make cakes for a charity sale while your own house is burning down.
There will, of course, be lots of condemnation about leaving the innocents to suffer but they are suffering anyway and whilst I feel sorry for them I would still rather protect my own land and people.
Yes I would be best if we left.That they might dance in the streets(911)party time.A new song for there children to sing. A new base to train with more oil money,US arms,yes we would give them just like the Palestinians sounds like the democratic solution Peace on Earth just great.I say we go with that plan hope they kill me last.kill you all first........ problem solved..............
"They had a base in Libya, Wheelus Air Base -- they had to leave it when Khaddafy came to power."
-from Hugh's post above
KHADDAFY
I don't know exactly why, but I chuckled when I saw the man's name spelled that way- it conjures up images of Looney Tunes characters, ferris wheels and salt water taffy. Apparently there's something about the Arabic language that allows for multiple spellings of the same name when written in the Latin script, but isn't it about time for some kind of standardization?
I would definitely start with "Khaddafy"
Now that Farfur was killed by that Zionist Jew, maybe they can replace him with Khaddafy Duck.
Strange to read that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said that they can mannage without America..
I was watching CNN news this morning and one of the big wigs in Iraq was saying that they could not do without America.. That if America left there would be blood shed everywhere.. one religious Muslim group killing other groups..
As far as the Methodist Church goes, their greatest hatred is of Jews and the Jewish state. Their greatest goal is the creation of a "Free Palestine", including what is now Israeli property. Their NGO's work tirelessly for Palestinian interests, they are funded by the Arabs, and they are closely aligned with CAIR. They have support from the left, Jimmy Carter, and from the right, Bush. They actually call for U.S. companies to divest of Israel investments until they end their "occupation". Is this bastion of Christianity going to help the war against Jihad? Heck no! They are adherents to the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" doctrine. We can see it now in the Bush kisses Fatah ass ME diplomacy. They actually call for prayer for Palestinian liberation in their sermons - the Methodists, not the Arabs, actually both. We cannot expect help from the Christians in this matter.
Alert"Looks like some of Bushs stuoidity has rubbed off on the Iraqi"
Priceless. The quote of the week.
Jihadwatcher"They only thing the US can do if they pull out is to find a secular dictator and make him a puppet. Find somebody with saddam-like brutality, establish a saddam-like police force, and hopefully keep the islamists at bay so that things don't get so bad that millions of iraqis set sail for the west, which, we all know, will consider itself morally obligated to take them in, seeing as how "we" broke it, so we bought it."
jihadwatcher, you're wiser than your years. Much wiser. Of course, as you wrote, we already had the answer in charge, until Dubya and all those thicko neocons screwed it up.
Poor sods who don't stack the shelves correctly in WalMart get canned - geddit? - yet here we have that C in C - aka drug taking hippy coward - and all his neo con mates effing up so abysmally yet with no repercussions.
And now it seems that Afghanistan is going down the toilet too.
Iraq and Afghanistan doomed.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2126817,00.html
This debacle didn't come cheap , why no siree. It cost a tidy trillion or so, 1,000s of Infidel soldiers lives and a plummeting in the Wests credibility.
How much do you want to bet that Dubya won't lose a winks sleep.
OTOH The good new is that this could spell the end for NATO. It should've been dissolved after the Warsaw Pact became history.
I used to defend Bush but I have come to realize that about Muslims, Islam, and the Koran he is clueless.
Can't defend you anymore, GW. Sorry.
I have emailed Mr. Spencer this afternoon regarding your steely focus on everything which I posit here on this COMMENTS section, asking him to please delete you. THIS IS NOT A FORUM.
Cordially and goodbye!
the Localmalcontent
Posted by: localmalcontent
Why dont you give PMK's mother a call too. I'm sure Robert has better things to do than respond to whiners.
Iraq...you notice that Maliki pulled up short of 'asking' the US/coalition to leave...
I think Treehugger has made some interesting points:
1) Treehugger asks what will happen to all the Iraqi refugees if the U.S. pulls out. I think this is a very real problem. Armed conflicts invariably lead to huge numbers of displaced persons (already there are reports of an Iraqi brain drain -- anyone with the resources has fled Iraq).
2) In another post, Treehugger mentions the camps set up in the western provinces of Iraq. But these are the Sunni areas of Iraq (where there is no oil). The Sunni tribal leaders have decided (for the moment anyway) to assist in going after al-Qaeda types. (but this is what has led al-Maliki to protest the American presence in Iraq -- it's because for al-Maliki and his Shiite buddies, the Americans are backing Sunni militias...and Sunni militias are enemies of Shiites.)
3) The southern areas of Iraq (including where the British are) are Shiite areas and many controlled by Iranian-backed militias. This is where the oil is.
4) So, there are these disparate areas (each with its own agenda and interests). There is no sense of "Iraq" as a nation...or you don't have Shiites in the South backing up Sunnis in the western provinces. There is no loyalty to the idea of a single entity/nation state of "Iraq." Thus, you get the cross purposes. So what the Americans want (the goals as outlined by Bush) will be at odds with what the al-Maliki (Shiite/Iranian-backed militia controlled) government goals are. Thus the nearly intractable problems (that is, the goals are conflicting.) (Eventually someone has to give in -- I suspect it will be Americans who will throw up their hands and leave -- which will then trigger victory cries from Iran.)